Motivation

Geometric algebra (GA) allows for a compact description of Maxwell’s equations in either an explicit 3D representation or a STA (SpaceTime Algebra [2]) representation. The 3D GA and STA representations Maxwell’s equation both the form

where the wave group velocity in the medium is \( v = 1/\sqrt{\epsilon\mu} \), and the medium is isotropic with
\( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{B}} = \mu \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} \), and \( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}} = \epsilon \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} \). In the STA representation, \( \grad, J, M \) are all four-vectors, the specific meanings of which will be spelled out below.

How to determine the potential equations and the field representation using the conventional distinct Maxwell’s \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:20}, … is well known. The basic procedure is to consider the electric and magnetic sources in turn, and observe that in each case one of the electric or magnetic fields must have a curl representation. The STA approach is similar, except that it can be observed that the field must have a four-curl representation for each type of source. In the explicit 3D GA formalism
\ref{eqn:potentialMethods:300} how to formulate a natural potential representation is not as obvious. There is no longer an reason to set any component of the field equal to a curl, and the representation of the four curl from the STA approach is awkward. Additionally, it is not obvious what form gauge invariance takes in the 3D GA representation.

Ideas explored in these notes

GA representation of Maxwell’s equations including magnetic sources.

STA GA formalism for Maxwell’s equations including magnetic sources.

Explicit form of the GA potential representation including both electric and magnetic sources.

Demonstration of exactly how the 3D and STA potentials are related.

Explore the structure of gauge transformations when magnetic sources are included.

Explore the structure of gauge transformations in the 3D GA formalism.

Specify the form of the Lorentz gauge in the 3D GA formalism.

Traditional vector algebra

No magnetic sources

When magnetic sources are omitted, it follows from \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:80} that there is some \( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} \) for which

subject to the constraints \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:120} and \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:260}.

Potential operator structure

Knowing that there is a simple underlying structure to the potential representation of the electromagnetic field in the STA formalism inspires the question of whether that structure can be found directly using the scalar and vector potentials determined above.

Specifically, what is the multivector representation \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1020} of the electromagnetic field in terms of all the individual potential variables, and can an underlying structure for that field representation be found? The composite field is

There’s a conjugate structure to the potential on each side of the curl operation where we see a sign change for the scalar and pseudoscalar elements only. The reason for this becomes more clear in the STA formalism.

Here the metric choice is \( \gamma_0^2 = 1 = -\gamma_k^2 \). Note that in this representation the electromagnetic field \( \boldsymbol{\mathcal{F}} = \boldsymbol{\mathcal{E}} + \eta I \boldsymbol{\mathcal{H}} \) is a bivector, not a multivector as it is explicit (frame dependent) 3D representation of \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:300}.

A potential representation can be obtained as before by considering electric and magnetic sources in sequence and using superposition to assemble a complete potential.

No magnetic sources

Without magnetic sources, Maxwell’s equation splits into vector and trivector terms of the form

subject to the constraints of \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:560} and \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:760}. As before the four-potential \( {A^{\mathrm{m}}} \) can be put into correspondence with the conventional scalar and vector potentials by left multiplying with \( \gamma_0 \), which gives

Potential operator structure

Observe that there is an underlying uniform structure of the differential operator that acts on the potential to produce the electromagnetic field. Expressed as a linear operator of the
gradient and the potentials, that is

Potentials in the 3D Euclidean formalism

In the conventional scalar plus vector differential representation of Maxwell’s equations \ref{eqn:chapter3Notes:20}…, given electric(magnetic) sources the structure of the electric(magnetic) potential follows from first setting the magnetic(electric) field equal to the curl of a vector potential. The procedure for the STA GA form of Maxwell’s equation was similar, where it was immediately evident that the field could be set to the four-curl of a four-vector potential (or the dual of such a curl for magnetic sources).

In the 3D GA representation, there is no immediate rationale for introducing a curl or the equivalent to a four-curl representation of the field. Reconciliation of this is possible by recognizing that the fact that the field (or a component of it) may be represented by a curl is not actually fundamental. Instead, observe that the two sided gradient action on a potential to generate the electromagnetic field in the STA representation of \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1000} serves to select the grade two component product of the gradient and the multivector potential \( {A^{\mathrm{e}}} – I {A^{\mathrm{m}}} \), and that this can in fact be written as
a single sided gradient operation on a potential, provided the multivector product is filtered with a four-bivector grade selection operation

Similarly, it can be observed that the
specific function of the conjugate structure in the two sided potential representation of
\ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1080}
is to discard all the scalar and pseudoscalar grades in the multivector product. This means that a single sided potential can also be used, provided it is wrapped in a grade selection operation

It is this grade selection operation that is really the fundamental defining action in the potential of the STA and conventional 3D representations of Maxwell’s equations. So, given Maxwell’s equation in the 3D GA representation, defining a potential representation for the field is really just a demand that the field have the structure

This is a mandate that the electromagnetic field is the grades 1 and 2 components of the vector product of space and time derivative operators on a multivector field \( A = \sum_{k=0}^3 A_k = A_0 + A_1 + I( A_0′ + A_1′ ) \) that can potentially have any grade components. There are more degrees of freedom in this specification than required, since the multivector can absorb one of the \( \alpha \) or \( \beta \) coefficients, so without loss of generality, one of these (say \( \alpha\)) can be set to 1.

This naturally has all the right mixes of curls, gradients and time derivatives, all following as direct consequences of applying a grade selection operation to the action of a “spacetime gradient” on a general multivector potential.

where \( A \) is a multivector potentially containing all grades, where grades 0,1 are required for electric sources, and grades 2,3 are required for magnetic sources. When it is desirable to refer back to the conventional scalar and vector potentials this multivector potential can be written as \( A = -\phi + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{e}} + \eta I \lr{ -\phi_m + v \boldsymbol{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{m}} } \).

In the 3D GA representation, where the field is given by \ref{eqn:potentialMethods:1360}, there is no field that is being curled to add a gradient to. However, if the scalar and vector potentials transform as

This required constraint on \( \BC \) will show up in subsequent analysis. An equivalent problem to the one posed
is to show that the even grade multivector equation \( \spacegrad \BM = s + I \BC \) has an inverse given the constraint
specified by \ref{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem5AppendixGA:420}.

Inverting the gradient equation.

The Green’s function for the gradient can be found in [1], where it is used to generalize the Cauchy integral equations to higher dimensions.

The integrals are in terms of the primed coordinates so that the end result is a function of \( \Bx \). To rearrange for \( \BM \), let \( d^3 \Bx’ = I dV’ \), and \( d^2 \Bx’ \ncap(\Bx’) = I dA’ \), then right multiply with the pseudoscalar \( I \), noting that in \R{3} the pseudoscalar commutes with any grades

Trivector grades.

Consider the last integral in the pseudoscalar equation above. Since we expect no pseudoscalar components, this must be zero, or cancel perfectly. It’s not obvious that this is the case, but a transformation to a surface integral shows the constraints required for that to be the case. To do so note

The divergence of \( \BC \) above was killed by recalling the constraint \ref{eqn:emtProblemSet1Problem5AppendixGA:420}. This means that we can rewrite entirely as surface integral and eventually reduced to a single triple product

This shows that vector \( \BM \) can be recovered uniquely from \( s, \BC \) when \( \Abs{\BM}/r^2 \) vanishes on an infinite surface. If we restrict attention to a finite surface, we have to add to the fixed solution a specific solution that depends on the value of \( \BM \) on that surface. The vector portion of that surface integrand contains

The constraints required by a zero triple product \( \spacegrad’ \cdot (\BM(\Bx’) \cross \ncap(\Bx’)) \) are complicated on a such a general finite surface. Consider instead, for simplicity, the case of a spherical surface, which can be analyzed more easily. In that case the outward normal of the surface centred on the test charge point \( \Bx \) is \( \ncap = -\rcap \). The pseudoscalar integrand is not generally killed unless the divergence of its tangential component on this surface is zero. One way that this can occur is for \( \BM \cross \ncap = 0 \), so that \( -\gpgradeone{ \rcap \ncap \BM } = \BM = (\BM \cdot \ncap) \ncap = \BM_{\textrm{n}} \).

Commentary

I attempted this problem in three different ways. My first approach (above) assembled the divergence and curl relations above into a single (Geometric Algebra) multivector gradient equation and applied the vector valued Green’s function for the gradient to invert that equation. That approach logically led from the differential equation for \( \BM \) to the solution for \( \BM \) in terms of \( s \) and \( \BC \). However, this strategy introduced some complexities that make me doubt the correctness of the associated boundary analysis.

Even if the details of the boundary handling in my multivector approach is not correct, I thought that approach was interesting enough to share.

Motivation

I initially thought that I might submit a problem set solution for ece1228 using Geometric Algebra. In order to justify this, I needed to add an appendix to that problem set that outlined enough of the ideas that such a solution might make sense to the grader.

I ended up changing my mind and reworked the problem entirely, removing any use of GA. Here’s the tutorial I initially considered submitting with that problem.

A product of two perpendicular vectors is called a bivector, and can be used to represent an oriented plane. The last line above shows an example of a scalar and bivector sum, called a multivector. In general Geometric Algebra allows sums of scalars, vectors, bivectors, and higher degree analogues (grades) be summed.

Comparison of the RHS and LHS of \ref{eqn:gaTutorial:80} shows that we must have

It is true in general that the product of two perpendicular vectors anticommutes. When, as above, such a product is a product of
two orthonormal vectors, it behaves like a non-commutative imaginary quantity, as it has an imaginary square in Euclidean spaces

is called a trivector. In \R{3}, the product of three orthonormal vectors is called a pseudoscalar for the space, and can represent an oriented volume element. The quantity \( I \) above is the typical orientation picked for the \R{3} unit pseudoscalar. This quantity also has characteristics of an imaginary number

Note that the wedge product of any number of vectors such as \( \Ba \wedge \Bb \wedge \Bc \) is associative and can be expressed in terms of the complete antisymmetrization of the product of those vectors. A consequence of that is the fact a wedge product that includes any colinear vectors in the product is zero.

Example: Helmholz equations.

As an example of the power of \ref{eqn:gaTutorial:180}, consider the following Helmholtz equation derivation (wave equations for the electric and magnetic fields in the frequency domain.)

Application of \ref{eqn:gaTutorial:180} to
Maxwell equations in the frequency domain for source free simple media gives

There was no reason to go through the headache of looking up or deriving the expansion of \( \spacegrad \cross (\spacegrad \cross \BA ) \) as is required with the traditional vector algebra demonstration of these identities.

Observe that the usual Helmholtz equation for \( \BB \) doesn’t have a pseudoscalar factor. That result can be obtained by just cancelling the factors \( I \) since the \R{3} Euclidean pseudoscalar commutes with all grades (this isn’t the case in \R{2} nor in Minkowski spaces.)

such as the use of (somewhat obscure) tensor contraction techniques. We can also do this with Geometric Algebra (using a different set of obscure techniques) by factoring the Laplacian action on a vector

Stokes Theorem

The Fundamental Theorem of (Geometric) Calculus is a generalization of Stokes theorem to multivector integrals. Notationally, it looks like Stokes theorem with all the dot and wedge products removed. It is worth restating Stokes theorem and all the definitions associated with it for reference

where both the a area form and the blade \( F \) are evaluated at the end points of the parameterization range.

After the work of stating exactly what is meant by this theorem, most of the proof follows from the fact that for \( s < k \) the volume curl dot product can be expanded as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:fundamentalTheoremOfCalculus:160}
\int_V d^k \Bx \cdot (\boldpartial \wedge F) =
\int_V d^k \Bx \cdot (\Bx^i \wedge \partial_i F) =
\int_V \lr{ d^k \Bx \cdot \Bx^i } \cdot \partial_i F.
\end{equation}
Each of the \(du^i\) integrals can be evaluated directly, since each of the remaining \(d\Bx_j = du^j \PDi{u^j}{}, i \ne j \) is calculated with \( u^i \) held fixed. This allows for the integration over a ``rectangular'' parameterization region, proving the theorem for such a volume parameterization. A more general proof requires a triangulation of the volume and surface, but the basic principle of the theorem is evident, without that additional work.

Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

There is a Geometric Algebra generalization of Stokes theorem that does not have the blade grade restriction of Stokes theorem. In [2] this is stated as

Adding in the same notational sugar that we used in Stokes theorem, this proves the Fundamental theorem \ref{eqn:fundamentalTheoremOfCalculus:220} for “rectangular” parameterizations. Note that such a parameterization need not actually be rectangular.

Note that this normal is normal to a three-volume subspace of the spacetime volume. For example, if one component of that spacetime surface area element is \( \gamma_{012} c dt dx dy \), then the normal to that area component is \( \gamma_3 \).

Motivation

fig 1. Two surfaces normal to the interface.

Most electrodynamics textbooks either start with or contain a treatment of boundary value conditions. These typically involve evaluating Maxwell’s equations over areas or volumes of decreasing height, such as those illustrated in fig. 1, and fig. 2. These represent surfaces and volumes where the height is allowed to decrease to infinitesimal levels, and are traditionally used to find the boundary value constraints of the normal and tangential components of the electric and magnetic fields.

fig 2. A pillbox volume encompassing the interface.

More advanced topics, such as evaluation of the Fresnel reflection and transmission equations, also rely on similar consideration of boundary value constraints. I’ve wondered for a long time how the Fresnel equations could be attacked by looking at the boundary conditions for the combined field \( F = \BE + I c \BB \), instead of the considering them separately.

A unified approach.

The Geometric Algebra (and relativistic tensor) formulations of Maxwell’s equations put the electric and magnetic fields on equal footings. It is in fact possible to specify the boundary value constraints on the fields without first separating Maxwell’s equations into their traditional forms. The starting point in Geometric Algebra is Maxwell’s equation, premultiplied by a stationary observer’s timelike basis vector

The electrodynamic field \(F = \BE + I c \BB\) is a multivector in this spatial domain (whereas it is a bivector in the spacetime algebra domain), and has vector and bivector components. The product of the spatial gradient and the field can still be split into dot and curl components \(\spacegrad M = \spacegrad \cdot M + \spacegrad \wedge M \). If \(M = \sum M_i \), where \(M_i\) is an grade \(i\) blade, then we give this the Hestenes’ [1] definitions

In the absence of charges and currents on the surface, and if the height of the volume is reduced to zero, the volume integrals vanish, and only the upper surfaces of the pillbox contribute to the surface integrals.

With a multivector \(F\) in the mix, the geometric meaning of these integrals is not terribly clear. They do describe the boundary conditions, but to see exactly what those are, we can now resort to the split of \(F\) into its electric and magnetic fields. Let’s look at the non-dual integral to start with

No component of \(\BE\) that is normal to the surface contributes to \(d^2 \Bx \cdot \BE \), whereas only components of \(\BB\) that are normal contribute to \(d^2 \Bx \wedge \BB \). That means that we must have tangential components of \(\BE\) and the normal components of \(\BB\) matching on the surfaces

These relationships are usually expressed in terms of all of \(\BE, \BD, \BB\) and \(\BH \). Because I’d started with Maxwell’s equations for free space, I don’t have the \( \epsilon \) and \( \mu \) factors that produce those more general relationships. Those more general boundary value relationships are usually the starting point for the Fresnel interface analysis. It is also possible to further generalize these relationships to include charges and currents on the surface.

In both cases a potential representation \( F = \grad \wedge A \), where \( A \) is a four vector potential can be used to kill off the non-current equation. Such a potential representation reduces Maxwell’s equation to

This can clearly be further simplified by using the Lorentz gauge, where \( \grad \cdot A = 0 \). However, the aim for now is to try applying Stokes theorem to Maxwell’s equation. The dual form \ref{eqn:maxwellStokes:100} has the curl structure required for the application of Stokes. Suppose that we evaluate this curl over the three parameter volume element \( d^3 x = i\, dx^0 dx^1 dx^2 \), where \( i = \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \) is the unit pseudoscalar for the spacetime volume element.

This uses the distibution identity \( A_s \cdot (a \wedge A_r) = (A_s \cdot a) \cdot A_r \) which holds for blades \( A_s, A_r \) provided \( s > r > 0 \). Observe that only the component of the gradient that lies in the tangent space of the three volume manifold contributes to the integral, allowing the gradient to be used in the Stokes integral instead of the vector derivative (see: [1]).
Defining the the surface area element

It can be demonstrated that using this with each of the standard basis spacetime 3-volume elements recovers Gauss’s law and the Ampere-Maxwell equation. So, what happened to Faraday’s law and Gauss’s law for magnetism? With application of Stokes to the curl equation from \ref{eqn:maxwellStokes:40}, those equations take the form

Problem 1:

Demonstrate that the Ampere-Maxwell equation and Gauss’s law can be recovered from the trivector (curl) equation \ref{eqn:maxwellStokes:100}.

Answer

The curl equation is a trivector on each side, so dotting it with each of the four possible trivectors \( \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2, \gamma_0 \gamma_2 \gamma_3, \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_3, \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3 \) will give four different scalar equations. For example, dotting with \( \gamma_0 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \), we have for the curl side

This smells like something that can probably be related to a combined electromagnetic field multivectors in some sort of structured fashion. Guessing that this is related to the antisymmetic sum of two electromagnetic field multivectors turns out to be correct. Let

This has two components, the first is a bivector (pseudoscalar times vector) that includes all the non-mixed products, and the second is a vector that includes all the mixed terms. We can therefore write the antisymmetic difference of the reciprocity theorem by extracting just the grade one terms of the antisymmetric sum of the combined electromagnetic field